You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_ixdecst wrote



AnonymousPussyNommer t1_ixdlks2 wrote

There’s so little snow for so long radio stations in my city sometimes somehow get a truck of snow brought in so people could have fun with it in this like 20x30 foot area. It’s just slightly better than nothing


Strazdas1 t1_ixgx7fu wrote

The winter skiing ground here now has artificial cooling because winters are too warm to keep the ice skate-able.


smurficus103 t1_ixe123r wrote

Use the runs for drunken mountain biking!


DAWTSF t1_ixfj51h wrote

Even if there was snow, it's always an option depending how drunk you are.


TibotPhinaut t1_ixetmuy wrote

Good, skiing is the epitome of climate harm


veloace t1_ixezyd8 wrote


I've never been skiing so I am genuinely curious how it is climate harm.


83-Edition t1_ixf2tgz wrote

The person you're responding to is over simifying and also generally incorrect as skiing climate impact pales in comparison to other things like air, boat, or many other types of leisure activities. If you hike up a mountain and ski down you're not causing an environmental impact. If you're on a resort, then yes trees were cut down to make the runs. Lift systems are also energy intensive, some resorts get some or all their energy from renewable sources, some don't. Others Groom runs and use heavy equipment to scrape them and make them easier to ski on which burns gas. There has been a lot of action and initiative on the part of the ski industry because most everyone who likes to ski realizes climate change will make it go away forever so a lot are doing much more than any other industry to reduce emissions.


TibotPhinaut t1_ixglnhj wrote

The person he was responding to at least has some idea of skiing in the Alps, whereas you seem totally oblivious to the cancerous impact it has taken.

Every single run is groomed in Europe, the ski season is artificially extended by artificial snow, water is being withheld from nature in artificial lakes for these snow cannons, cable cars/chairlifts have heated seats, most ski areas are absolutely barren when it comes to biodiversity and they do cover a larger and larger extent.

I could go on, but I won't, because you've clearly never been to the Alps.


Flash635 t1_ixd149x wrote

Where I live in Australia we haven't had one of those stinking hot summers we used to have for years. On the other hand, I haven't seen frost in winter for years either.


RODjij t1_ixe6rqp wrote

Didn't most of Australia just burn over a couple of years ago from everything being dry and billions of animals gone?


Spitinthacoola t1_ixe8gvd wrote

Australia's land area is about 770 million hectares. What burned in 2019-20 was about 17 million hectares.

Its a lot. But not even close to a majority. It's hard to imagine what that would be like, especially given how little of Australia's land is actually colonized with humans.


imapassenger1 t1_ixec8q3 wrote

With 2/3 desert that is unlikely to burn the percentage is much higher.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixeflwc wrote

That doesn't change the number in any way


imapassenger1 t1_ixeh9u1 wrote

Of course it does. Take it as a percentage of the forests, not the grassy plains and deserts.


Skraff t1_ixewinp wrote

125 million hectares of forest total. 24 million hectares burned in 2019/2020 fires.

A much bigger deal than mr “only 2 percent of the desert caught fire” that you are replying to.


a8bmiles t1_ixemw1h wrote

Oh are we just throwing away data to make the results look better? Sure thing then!

"A couple years ago, 100% of Australia burned*"

^(* = measurement includes only areas that caught on fire)


NedGaryNeb t1_ixf3c7a wrote

Take an example island that has 100 acres. 80 acres are baren desert and literally can't catch fire, the remaining 20 acres are forest. 10 of those acres catch fire.

Are you doing the destruction justice by saying just 10% of the island burned? Wouldn't saying "50% of the island that is flammable burned" more representative of the destruction?


a8bmiles t1_ixfqaz9 wrote

Yes but see, you included the words "that is flammable" and reduced ambiguity. If you were the OP you would have said "50% of the island was on fire".

Do you see the difference?


RAMAR713 t1_ixfokbc wrote

Don't be infantile. Both statements are correct, but the way you're presenting the data can be misleading and is generally less useful. When considering burned areas, what matters is what can burn.


a8bmiles t1_ixfpbgv wrote

At least my way is clearly disingenuous and might cause someone to question the statement. His "most of Australia burned" statement is just believable enough to promulgate false information and result in someone believing that most of the land mass was on fire when that's obviously not true.

If he didn't want to be misleading he could have easily done so by adding a few more words to his statement.


Clearlybeerly t1_ixg0424 wrote

We can do better than that.

"A couple of years ago, 200% of Australia burned.*"

  • = measurement only includes the areas that I personally care about. But other areas I don't care about also burned, so I guess they have to be included in the total total.

Strazdas1 t1_ixgxebw wrote

Australias land area is also 90% desert. How many percentages of australian forest burned would be a better measure.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixikat7 wrote

It isnt. Australia is less than. 20% desert. They landmass has nearly the same amount of forests as it does deserts. Yall have weird understandings of Australia.


Strazdas1 t1_ixlbgwh wrote

Australia government says it has 16% landmass of forests

about 35% of the Australian continent receives so little rain, it is practically desert


Spitinthacoola t1_ixlespp wrote

Yes, and again, even still less than 1% of the forested area burned during the time we are talking about. I'm not sure why you are trying to be argumentative about this.


Strazdas1 t1_ixlg82m wrote

What im trying to say is that burned forest compared to total landmass is bad measure and should be compared to total forest mass.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixlgnxp wrote

And I'm saying even compared to just forest area (not sure how to calculate mass of forests burned) its still like 1% of the area that was burned.

So even when you ignore about 80% of the country, about 1% was on fire.

Its so incredibly far from being anywhere near a majority.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore.


Strazdas1 t1_ixplm6e wrote

Then thats what you should have been saying in the beginning. Also i think you are mixing me up with someone else, because i never said a majority was on fire.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixpnrm5 wrote

You're literally jumping into a thread about that specific thing. I think you are perhaps mixed up about what is happening here.


DepGrez t1_ixeteva wrote

Yes. 2019-2020 summer was brutal and this was the bushfire season that got the worlds attention due to literally everything being on fire. However shortly after the bushfires we've had 3 consecutive La Nina weather cycles meaning since Feb 2020 we've basically had above average rainfall and a lot of flooding.


Flash635 t1_ixg42sc wrote

Not most and I don't think it was billions.

Australia has been part of the Great Southern Oscillation for ever. We're in the La Niña cycle right now and the West Coast of the US is in El Niño.

Those fires were at the end of a cyclic long drought and were ended by rains and flooding.


some_qualms t1_ixedlk9 wrote

Is this the earth starting with them because of all the industrialization? We’re all next.


jtblion t1_ixg23xm wrote

Doom-posting and 'We deserve it' rhetoric does nothing to solve the problem, and in fact feeds into denialist positions by essentially encouraging people to give up.


Liesthroughisteeth t1_ixdnjxr wrote

Interior of BC Canada here. Have lived in the interior of the province since 1966, and have never seen or heard of forest fires and fire seasons like the ones seen over the past 16-17 years with the more recent being progressively worse. A couple of recent years have each seen enough forest burned to cover the state of Connecticut completely. Living with smoke through 5 months out of the year isn't good for anyone never mind the changes to the already over harvested forests and how this along with deforestation by fires will affect local climate.


Grimlock_1 t1_ixgjoft wrote

The sad thing is, the data relation to climate change is everywhere and yet there's deniers out there.

It boggles me.


Willy_wonks_man t1_ixgm71v wrote

You should always call them out.


Wertyui09070 t1_ixhfr7e wrote

My real life encounters are changing from denial to financial concerns over the plan. Who's profiting? Will it work? Paper straws won't save the world, etc.

Decent concerns to have, but they could have had a seat at the table.


Willy_wonks_man t1_ixihrtt wrote

I mean, sure. Decent concerns to have.

Ask if they have kids. Nieces, nephews, their own children, or grandchildren.

Then tell them what will happen to their kids. Tell them what will happen to them if things aren't changed.


considerthis8 t1_ixhc2rj wrote

Have forest fired been suppressed artificially in your region? I hear in california a lot of the issue is due to people not allowing nature to take it’s course on forest fires, causing a build up of flammable material


Liesthroughisteeth t1_ixipr9r wrote

The province is 365,000 sq. miles with most of it dense forest. There's no possibility of managing flammable material to reduce risk, and when it burns during what are turning out to be longer dryer periods, it burns completely.


considerthis8 t1_ixiq1w6 wrote

Are natural fires put out or are they left to burn? Fires reduce the flammable material


Liesthroughisteeth t1_ixjk4dv wrote

In two different years over the past 4 we have lost enough forest in each year to cover the entire state of Connecticut. Yes we try to put them out. Because unless we have have lots of rain they will continue to burn, as they have been doing in Washington and Oregon states as well. We have all been having record setting dry periods and if left to burn they will not stop burning. These forests are not Bambi forest with clear spaces under a beautiful canopy. When these go up they go up. If we let them go we'd start to run out of trees to cut down.

Please take your one size fits all amateur degree in Forestry from Bermuda somewhere else. There's been people here who have real degrees who have spent their lives in these forests trying to come to grips with the preservation and the prevention of the devastation we are seeing and breathing for 4-5 months out of the year.


imnotsureanymore2004 t1_ixdc36y wrote

It’s funny that these articles get like 6 comments, and then Kayne (Ye) West gets thousands of comments for changing out a toilet.


E_Pluribus_Omnom t1_ixdfn8g wrote

Ye is entertainment.

Human-driven climate change is not entertainment, it's a boring reality that individuals feel helpless on.


Impossible-Winter-94 t1_ixe1jew wrote

as individuals should, this is not a problem that individuals can solve, but rather corporations


AtheistAustralis t1_ixg00p1 wrote

No, corporations can't solve it because that's not what they do. Corporations don't solve problems, they make money, usually by creating problems. Governments can solve these problems, by forcing corporations to act in particular ways. And people control the governments by voting. So if you want to do something, get out and vote for whatever candidates and parties have strong policies on climate change action. If people say "oh but it will hurt the economy", tell them to get fucked. You know what will hurt the economy more? Massive, planet-wide ecological system failure. Failure to address climate change due to "the economy" is like not fixing a hole in your boat because it will divert people from rowing, therefore slowing the boat down a little. Newsflash, the boat sinking will slow it down a whole lot more.

So vote, encourage others to vote, and get out and support and campaign for candidates that support real, meaningful change in policy. That's what people can do to help, and it does work if enough do it. Saying that individuals can't do anything is a very successful tactic used by those that just want to keep the status quo by making people feel helpless.


CMDR_omnicognate t1_ixdoq6v wrote

There was a period during the summer in my part of the south of the UK where we didnt get any rain for 2 months... the UK, no rain, for two months


DangerousMusic14 t1_ixefum2 wrote

PNW US has been dry also. Terrifying. Our trees are dying, salmon are unable to spawn in places (BC Canada especially).


maggiesdeed t1_ixdweyb wrote

The southern UK is very dry, especially the south east.


AllanfromWales1 t1_ixd0pm3 wrote

..and other parts, like the west coast of Wales where I live, aren't. Confirms what I suspected, that we've been lucky enough to avoid the worst of it, though obviously that will change dramatically if the Gulf Stream gets diverted.


Awkward_moments t1_ixfadod wrote

I'm not saying I want climate change but seeing as it is happening it would be nice if Wales was the place getting abnormally hotter and drier.


AllanfromWales1 t1_ixfbjmq wrote

Nah, it's the lush green hills that make the place so beautiful. Parched landscapes do nothing for me.


Awkward_moments t1_ixfcstw wrote

I can still rain. Just needs less of the slight drizzle for three weeks followed by a week if heavy rain.

Malaysia is very green. It just shits down for a couple of hours and then has clear blue skies.


4daughters t1_ixft8k6 wrote

I don't think you want your land slipping into the atlantic.

Oregon used to have regular, year round rain. Now we have two seasons, torrentialrain and droughtfire. Our land gets parched and then washes away. It's not good.


Awkward_moments t1_ixfz25j wrote

How much of that is recent though?

Because the driest month in Portland is 3 days of rain and the driest month in Cardiff is 14 days of rain.

That's a huge difference.,portland,United-States-of-America


4daughters t1_ixzfusx wrote

Most of it is very recent. I don't know if I'd compare Portland to Cardiff as Portland is inland a bit and it is naturally a little less wet than the coast- a more apt comparison would be to Astoria or Seaside since they are coastal towns. But I can say that our driest months have gotten much drier in the last 15 years.


rittenalready t1_ixdlf3v wrote

What we will learn is what is observable. Science can make predictions but that is not what science is for the most part. Science is observation and we will observe the 1.5 degree warming be several times the warming throughout the planet and then we will observe the consequences of our lack of action. The world will only truly know the price when we’ve paid it.


SooooooMeta t1_ixfhm4z wrote

They may not be science’s true powerhouse but statistics and modeling have come a long way. Just 30 years ago the weather forecast was a joke where it couldn’t reliably tell you whether to take her umbrella or not. Now I can plan whether to take in my plants or not five days in advance based on predicted nighttime temperatures. A lot of the models for climate change are quite accurate but what does it matter if they get it right? Nobody is paying attention to them anyway


TheMexitalian t1_ixeikmd wrote

After the Amazon burned to a certain extent we entered a positive feedback cycle so yah… this tracks


DENelson83 t1_ixeeord wrote

And yet capitalism will never care.


Crizbibble t1_ixh1yhn wrote

Sure it will cause it’s committing suicide. Once the feedback loops really hit insurance will be unaffordable and the daily damages will create such widespread upheaval that capitalism won’t be able to sustain itself. Sure the rich will squirrel away to some secret place in Montana or New Zealand but they will get caught in this hell too. That’s why they are trying to get to outer space before it gets really bad.


DENelson83 t1_ixiaphb wrote

Well, capitalism is not going to go down without a brutal fight. And I am sorry to say, but that brutal fight may very well be World War III.


DHF_Bassist t1_ixdr5ss wrote

I was hotter getting off the plane at 3am in the East Midlands of England than when I was sat at Tenerife South airport at 5pm in the height of summer. Very hot compared to most years, this year.


anders987 t1_ixezfmf wrote

The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute published a report today about observed climate change in Sweden 1860-2021. Here's the abstract in English:

> Historical Swedish observations of temperature, length of vegetation period, precipitation, snow, global radiation, and geostrophic wind have been analysed. The length of available time series varies among these variables. Whereas there are temperature observations for Uppsala ranging back to 1722 continuous measurements of global radiation at eight Swedish stations start only in 1983. Climate indicators based on these observations show that:

> * The annual mean temperature for Sweden has increased by 1.9 °C compared to the period 1861–1890. > * The amount of annual precipitation increased since 1930 from about 600 mm/year to almost 700 mm/year. > * The number of days with snow cover has reduced since 1950. > * The global radiation increased with circa 10 % since the mid-1980’s. > * The geostrophic wind has no clear change pattern since 1940.

> The listed changes are annual averages for Sweden. These are robust and statistically significant in most cases. The picture is getting more diverse when investigating smaller regions or different seasons instead of annual means. For instance, the increase of precipitation is mainly related to enhanced precipitation during autumn and winter whereas there are no obvious trends in spring and summer. Moreover, changes in extremes are generally harder to identify. For instance, despite the clear negative trend in the number of days with snow cover there is no significant trend for the maximum snow depth.


billybishop4242 t1_ixf2c7n wrote

Good. At least it’s happening where there are people to notice and not just polar bears.


AutoModerator t1_ixczfqj wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


euzie t1_ixe8x3j wrote

Yup local lake here in the south of Spain is pretty much empty, and we had a bunch of fires this summer. Hasn't rained in ages


Kennyvee98 t1_ixehvf6 wrote

"Yes, well. With these heating prices, it better..."

I'm sorry.


chzandonai t1_ixeprg1 wrote

looks like the game has turned Montesquieu, doesn't it?


JOWWLLL t1_ixf3aqd wrote

What parts are heating half as fast as average? I'm moving there.


AtheistAustralis t1_ixg4c53 wrote

I know you're joking, but the answer is the equatorial regions. Which are already hot af, so if you're after a nice cool climate, you're out of luck.


Strazdas1 t1_ixgxpui wrote

Or eastern europe, which on average actually cooled downn.


JOWWLLL t1_ixisnwh wrote

Eastern side of unified Germany... not bad! And if it eventually gets too hot, there's always German beer. Mmmmmmm ;)


Strazdas1 t1_ixlazks wrote

Alcohol does not make you warm. It tricks your body into thinkign it is warm. This results in hypothermia.


JOWWLLL t1_iy9n9ui wrote

You are correct. But I was talking about reducing heat, not attempting to warm oneself up. Cold beer on a hot day is one of life's little pleasures. Caveat: It's also important to drink non-alcoholic fluids, as any alco-bev* acts as a diuretic.

*see Coneheads.


ackstorm23 t1_ixg1w0i wrote

it's only going to get worse.

buckle up.


spm7368 t1_ixguxsn wrote

I guess they can stop complaining about not having Russian gas to heat their homes this winter then


Apocalyptic-turnip t1_ixhggla wrote

watch as we will do absolutely nothing about it. I'm so sick with the state of things


DankDingusMan t1_ixdfbzp wrote

Why don't they ever divide it by daytime and nighttime highs and lows?


abarrageofpoop t1_ixf9fl2 wrote

If you ever want a reason to hate humanity just think about the climate catastrophe.


mendog2112 t1_ixfiqmo wrote

Sure it has. Your alarmism isn’t causing climate anxiety any longer. We are wise to you.


Sparkykun t1_ixd4bm5 wrote

Could be burning too much oil in Saudi Arabia affecting European climate?


FlaminJake t1_ixe5v77 wrote

Did you have a stroke while writing this? I think I had one trying to understand it.

"Could be burning too much oil in Saudi Arabia affecting European climate?"


Sparkykun t1_ixf3g4f wrote

The oil in the Earth acts as a coolant system, so depleting it leads to warmer temperatures in the surrounding area


Osmirl t1_ixfxmih wrote

Im 99% sure it doesn’t cause if it cool the earth where does the heat go? Cant go underground cause its hot inside the earth.

Maybe it circles up to the poles where it cools down. No wait.. thats the Gulf Stream


Sparkykun t1_ixg697w wrote

The heat on Earth comes from inside the Earth, not from the sun, so the oil captures some of that heat coming out, and the land above it is not as warm. If the heat comes from the sun, then it would get hotter as one flies towards it, but that’s not the case


DMAN591 t1_ixe4hmd wrote

US Leaders: "Write that down!"


CatEyes420 t1_ixduy8v wrote

Ah so Ukraine working together with Russia who has a 25 year deal with China that is still ongoing are to blame and it is the worst at Moldavia(based on this map and the “heat levels”…the relationship between them and the Danube River is definitely part of the reason all this war is going on…

The Cuciurgan power station (Russian: Молдавская ГРЭС), is the largest power station of Moldova. It is located at the Cuciurgan Reservoir bordering Ukraine.

Around 83% of Moldova's electricity is produced by them…

“The Cuciurgan power station is operated by Moldavskaya GRES, a subsidiary of the Joint Stock Company Inter RAO UES (Russian: Публичное акционерное общество «ИНТЕР РАО ЕЭС» that is operated in Moscow, Russia.

It is the largest power company in an area comprising Moldova and southern Ukraine.

The company exports power to Ukraine, Romania and Russia.

It was privatized in 2004 by Transnistrian authorities, but official Moldova does not recognize this privatization.”

“Major shareholders of Inter RAO are Russian state-owned entities. As of August 2018, shareholders of Inter RAO were:

•	Rosneftegaz - 27.63%

•	FGC UES - 9.24%

•	Inter RAO Capital - 29.39%

•	Freely traded (minority shareholders) - 33.74%

Boris Kovalchuk is the CEO of Inter RAO.

On 13 May 2022, Inter RAO subsidiary RAO Nordic announced to suspend deliveries of electricity to Finland and stopped them at midnight.

The announcement came one day after Finland's president Sauli Niinistö and prime minister Sanna Marin had expressed their support for Finnish membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The move fits an ongoing pattern of economic sanctions and counter-sanctions in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

From October 2021, Inter RAO has increased supplying electricity to China by 90% up from planned amount, within the terms of the 25-year agreement of 2012 with State Grid Corporation of China.

At the end of the same month, China sent out a call to “Inter RAO” for nearly double current amounts of supplies of electricity by the end of the year 2021.

According to Alexandra Panina, member of the board of “Inter RAO”, the request of Chinese partners will be ratified almost completely.

In October 2021, Inter RAO announced electricity commercial supplies to Kazakhstan in November, due to its "inhouse" deficiency in this country.

On May 14, 2022 RAO Nordic released a statement saying they were halting the import of power into Finland due to lack of payment. Power transmission halted at 2200 GMT May 14, 2022.

Ukraine knows the ecological threat it causes yet still gave Moldova the land necessary to build the oil terminal that eventually runs into the Danube–Black Sea Canal which is where all the water and wastes go…the Black Sea…

“The river is also an important source of hydropower and drinking water. Many European borders, especially in the Balkans, are also drawn by the Danube's stream. There are more countries along its flow than on any other river…

The Danube river basin is home to fish species such as pike, zander, huchen, Wels catfish, burbot and tench. It is also home to a large diversity of carp and sturgeon, as well as salmon and trout. A few species of euryhaline fish, such as European seabass, mullet, and eel, inhabit the Danube Delta and the lower portion of the river.”

Keep polluting the water you drink and see what happens. The poor salmons swimming up stream one day will disappear, bc of this, but whatever, oil, money, and war, land, crops, & water….wooooowww I’m so not impressed, everyone in politics making these decisions have truly lost their way in life.


AaronfromKY t1_ixdw2o0 wrote

I often wonder if European reliance on diesel fuel has amplified heating there, compared to the US where diesel cars are a rarity, owing to higher diesel fuel costs and lower emissions standards on gas powered cars vs diesel.


[deleted] t1_ixebqg1 wrote



AaronfromKY t1_ixedm59 wrote

They don't, but regional air pollution will definitely cause regional effects as well. I'm well aware of Ozone alerts and poor air quality days here in the US, usually caused by diesel particulates and stagnant air(high pressure domes). I know European countries tend to have a lot more diesel cars instead of gasoline powered cars, due to taxes and fuel costs. Diesel produces much more NOx emissions that have worse greenhouse effects than gasoline powered cars. That's all I'm trying to say, so imagine all those diesel emissions in the cramped urban confines of a European city and there's the potential for stronger heat waves and worse air quality, especially with stagnant air.